Phase 2: Bat and Bird Activity survey Report

“Pinfold Farm” Bagshaw, Chapel en le Frith, High Peak, Derbyshire. SK23 0QU

June 2017 Notice to readers

This report has been prepared by Charnia Ecology with all reasonable skill, care and diligence, within the terms of the contract with the client. The actions of the surveyor on site and during the production of the report were undertaken in accordance with the Code of Professional Conduct for the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (www.ieem.org.uk).

No part of this document may be reproduced without the prior written approval of Charnia Ecology.

Client Details: Mr. and Mrs. S. Dawson

Application area: Pinfold Farm, Bagshaw, Chapel en le Frith, High Peak, Derbyshire

Postcode/ OS Grid Ref: SK23 0QU./ SK077811

Issue No: Final Issue 1 Date Issued: June 2017

Author: Mark Weston BSc, GradCIEEM, AMRSB

Surveyor capability

The Principle Ecologist is a Natural England licensed bat Ecologist (CLS10722 – Level 2) and member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (MCIEEM), and an associate member of the Royal Society of Biology (AMRSB). The ecologist has a First Class Honours degree in Conservation Biology, and Vice Chancellors award for academic excellence. He has undertaken protected species surveys for over seven years, and is actively involved in scoping, presence/absence surveys and Natural England EPS licence applications with regard to planning and the law. The actions of the surveyor on site and during the production of written reports are undertaken in accordance with the Code of Professional Conduct for the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM). Non-technical Summary

- **Report rationale**

  1. This report has been prepared at the request of the client, This report has been prepared at the request of the clients Mr and Mrs Dawson in relation to the identification of protected bat and bird species at Pinfold Farm, Bagshaw, Chapel en le Frith, High Peak, SK23 0QU [NGR: SK078811].
  2. Bat and bird activity surveys were undertaken in accordance to current Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) guidelines, and carried out during May/June 2017 by a Natural England class 2 licensed bat ecologist and member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM).

- **Proposed works** 3. It is proposed to retain the original block stone farm building whilst removing the cinderblock section to make way for a residential dwelling. Works will include stripping of the roof section and renewing of the roof section, with repointing of stone work also considered.

- **Site description** 4. The site is situated amongst a wider agricultural area ca.1.16km on the eastern outskirts of Chapel-en-le-Frith in the Peak District of Derbyshire. The proposed planning application considers a main two-storey stone building with pitched roof and an attached flat roof single storey cinderblock extension on the west elevation.

- **Building inspection** 5. Whilst, the original building pertains to a large number of crack and crevices in-and-around the original stone-work, the overall roof fabrication is not considered conducive to the thermoregulation requirements of roosting bats. Furthermore, the building is well illuminated, subject to frequent disturbance/visitation and is also used to house five domestic farm cats, thus reducing overall potential for roosting bats. 6. No evidence of roosting bats was recorded during the building inspection. Overall the building unit(s) subject to development is considered as having LOW TO MODERATE potential for roosting bats. Subsequently two activity surveys (1 x dusk / 1 x dawn) were subsequently assigned to the structure.

- **Activity surveys** 7. No evidence of any high conservation status bat roost(s) were recorded in-situ within the building subject to development. Regular internal inspection of the roof void during the dusk survey period recorded no evidence of pre-emergent, void-dwelling bat species. 8. Conversely, a single common pipistrelle was visually seen as showing some affinity to an external wall on the SW facing cinderblock mono-pitched roof section shortly before dawn, where a prominent cavity is present. This bat was seen circumnavigating around this region, landing once on the wall before vacating off site in a NW direction.

- **Foraging and commuting habitat** 9. Activity surveys recorded low levels of solitary commuting and foraging common pipistrelle briefly around site during both survey periods. Most notably, common noctules were visually recorded commuting and foraging in tandem over site, during both survey periods. Early presence around dawn and dusk would strongly infer the presence of roost nearby, although not considered as being present within the application area/ ZoI itself. • **Impact assessment**

10. Based on activity surveys no impact to any high conservation status bat roosts is considered. In the absence of mitigation low impact on a transient day roost for solitary pipistrelle bats over space and time is speculated although not considered as being absolute.

11. No evidence of Barn owl was recorded and no impact is predicted.

• **Survey constraints**

12. No survey constraints were encountered and assessment was considered as being robust overall, and representational of the building(s) current potential for bats and birds.

• **Further survey**

13. NO further survey recommendations are considered for protected bat and bird species (including Barn Owl).

• **Mitigation recommendations**

14. As no evidence of any high conservation status bat roost(s) was recorded in the building subject to development, it will not be necessary to apply for a mitigation licence from Natural England.

15. However, as there is tentative evidence that the building may have some transient use by individual pipistrelle bats over space and time. It is therefore recommended that a number of site-safeguard measures are implemented, which should be made a condition of the Planning consent.

16. Key consideration should be given to **timing of works; soft demolition under supervision and roost compensation** to minimize any inadvertent impact on protected bat and bird species (See Section 5).

17. **IMPORTANT:** In the unlikely event that individual bats are encountered during works (or suspicion arise about the possible presence of bats), then ALL work must cease immediately and a licensed bat ecologist should be consulted if not already present onsite. Thereafter, the named ecologist should re-assess the structure, and determine whether works can continue without licence from Natural England.

18. Mitigation should also consider European Swallow and individual passerine nesting birds. No evidence of Barn owl was recorded and no further recommendations are made with regard to this species. CONTENTS

19. INTRODUCTION o Site description o Proposed works o Aims of survey

20. SURVEY METHODOLOGY o Summary of survey methods o Pre-survey data search o Surveyor information o Field surveys o Habitat survey o Roost survey o Activity surveys

21. RESULTS o Pre-survey data search o Designated sites o Protected species o Field surveys o Habitat description o Roost survey o Activity survey

22. IMPACT ASSESSMENT o Constraints on survey information o Constraints on equipment used o Potential impacts of development o Designated sites o Roosts o Foraging and commuting habitat o Legislation and Policy guidance

23. RECOMMENDATIONS o Further survey o Mitigation measures o Mitigation licence o Preliminary mitigation outline recommendations

24. REFERENCES

25. APPENDICES

26. CONDITIONS AND DISCLAIMERS

27. **INTRODUCTION**

28. This report has been prepared at the request of the client, Mr and Mrs Dawson in relation to the identification of protected bat and bird species at “Pinfold Farm” Bagshaw, Chapel en le Frith, High Peak, SK23 OQU [NGR: SK078811].

29. The objective of this report is to provide the client with information on the known and potential bat roosts and birds nesting within the building, and to outline recommendations on how to proceed with the works in a legal and ecologically sensitive manner should bats and birds be resent.

30. Bat and bird activity surveys were undertaken in accordance to current Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) guidelines, and carried out during May/June 2017 by a Natural England class 2 licensed bat ecologist and member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM).

- **Site description**

4. The surveyed building comprises of an attached one-storey cinderblock and two-storey disused stone barn located close to Pinfold Farm. The site is situated amongst a wider agricultural area ca.1.16km on the eastern outskirts of Chapel-en-le-Frith in the Peak District of Derbyshire. The site is accessed along a main track off Blackbrook Lane via Bagshaw and comprises of “Pinfold Farm” itself, and a series of curtilage buildings including the two storey surveyed building with an attached cinderblock single story section on the eastern aspect forming part of “J Dawson’s Sheds”.

![Figure 1. Location of proposed application (star) in context to the surrounding landscape (source:www.gridref.org.uk).](image-url) • **Proposed works**

5. It is proposed to retain the original block stone farm building whilst removing the cinderblock section to make way for a residential dwelling. Works will include stripping of the roof section and renewing of the roof section, with repointing of stone work also considered.

![Figure 2. Aerial view of proposed development area at “Pinfold Farm” (red) in context to the wider landscape (source:google earth).](image)

• **Aims of survey**

6. The main objectives of this report activity surveys is to provide initial advice at the pre-acquisition stage with regards to any potential ecological impacts through development regarding protected bat and bird species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and/or the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (2); including species listed in the UK and local Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs).

7. The scope of this appraisal has been determined in line with the proportional approach to ecological survey, assessment and subsequent recommendations for avoidance and mitigation of impacts, which is encouraged in the emerging ‘BS 42020: Biodiversity – Code of practice for planning and development’.

8. This report has been prepared with due consideration for various best practice guidance and methodologies including those of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM (2012)1, the emerging BS 42020 and BCT Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edn) 2016.

| Bats | |------| | • Probability of bats and their roost sites being present at the proposed redevelopment site i.e. buildings and trees | | • To assess the roost status should bats be present. | | • To assess commuting and foraging habitat that may be subject to impact from proposed development. | | • To provide an overall impact assessment. |

**Table 1.** Aims of survey in relation to bats. 9. All species of bat are listed in Schedule 5 of The Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) and as such receive protection under Section 9 of this Act. This means a criminal offence will be committed if you:

- Deliberately capture, injure or kill a bat;
- Intentionally or recklessly disturb a bat in its roost or deliberately disturb a group of bats;
- Damage or destroy a bat roosting place (even if bats are not occupying the roost at the time);
- Possess or advertise/sell/exchange a bat (dead or alive) or any part of a bat;
- Intentionally or recklessly obstruct access to a bat roost.

10. A bat roost is interpreted as ‘any structure or place, which any wild bat uses for shelter or protection’ (i.e. buildings, trees, bridges, tunnels etc.). Bats tend to show a high fidelity to roosts; subsequently, legal opinion regards a roost to be protected whether or not the bats are present at the time. There are many types of roost used by temperate bats during their annual cycle: Any structures found having evidence of bats will be further evaluated to assess which of the following roost categories may be present onsite (if any):

| Roost status | Description | |-------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Maternity / Nursery Roost | Used by breeding bats, where pups are born and raised to independence (Anecdotal evidence may support this prospect despite sub-optimal survey period). | | Hibernation Site | Where bats may be found during the winter. (This is assessed within the context of this report). | | Daytime Summer Roost | Used by males and/or non-breeding females (Seasonal limitations prevent robust analysis of this). | | Night Roost | Where bats rest between feeding bouts during the night but are rarely present during the day. | | Feeding Roost | Where bats temporarily utilize feeding perches and stations to eat an item of prey. | | Transitional (or Swarming) Site | Where bats may be present during the spring or autumn (This cannot be assessed within the context of this report). |

Table 2. Bat roost status definitions

11. The survey protocol also considers all common wild birds that are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (and as amended). This protection extends to bird nests during the breeding season, which makes it an offence to damage or destroy nests or eggs.

| Birds | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------| | • Establish if birds are using the site. | | • Locate nest sites, if present. | | • Assess what types of activities were shown within the redevelopment site. | | • Assess suitable food resources and habitat requirements. | | • Provide an impact assessment, if nests are found. |

Table 3. Aims of survey in relation to birds. 12. Certain rare breeding birds such as Barn Owl *Tyto alba*, are listed on Schedule One of The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (and as amended). Under this legislation they are afforded the same protection as common wild birds and are also protected against disturbance whilst building a nest or on or near a nest containing eggs and unfledged young. Survey protocol considers the following:

| Barn Owl (*Tyto alba*) | |------------------------| | • Establish presence onsite. | | • Establish potential nest sites (PNS). | | • Locate any active roost sites (ARS). | | • Locate any temporary roost sites (TRS). | | • Assess potential feeding and dispersal habitats (PFH). | | • Provide an impact assessment, should barn owl(s) be present. |

Table 4. Aims of survey in relation to Barn Owl.

- **Valued ecological receptors (VERs)**

13. Assessment also considers potential effects on Valued Ecological Receptors (VERs) and Zones of Influence (ZoI) during pre and post development, both onsite and off-site. The term Zone of Influence is used to describe the geographic extent of potential impacts of a proposed development.

14. Should a likely significance of negative impacts to bats and/or birds be identified during the survey period, then further surveys, mitigation and enhancement measures may be necessary to prevent, offset or reduce the degree of impact that may occur should development commence. Should bats be present onsite, then a European Protected Species (EPS) development license issued by Natural England (NE) may be required prior to any works taking place.

- **Mitigation**

15. The purpose of this report will only provide a preliminary outline of a bat mitigation strategy. A detailed method statement will need to be determined through consultation with an appropriately qualified and experienced bat ecologist thereafter, to fully support the aforementioned licence application.

16. Mitigation should be proportionate, justifiable and avoid or minimize any harm to species found during works, whilst ensuring the Favourable Conservation Status of local bat populations is maintained. Mitigation should be proportionate to:

- Type and scale of works and predicted impacts on bats
- Size, nature and complexity of the development site
- Likelihood of bats being present or affected
- Species and numbers of individuals concerned
- Type of roost and/or habitat affected.

2. **SURVEY METHODOLOGY**

3. In accordance with BCT 3rd edition (2016) guidelines, the following survey protocol is considered appropriate to provide a full ecological evaluation of the site in order to determine the following criteria:

- What impact the redevelopment is likely to have on any protected species found at the site.

- The need for any Natural England development licence application to be made in respect of activities concerning protected species.

- Recommendations for any mitigation measures that would be required.

- **Pre-survey data search**

18. Pre-survey data search provided historical records of any protected bat and bird species found within a 2km radius of the application area. Additional ecological data has been sourced to understand any constraints that the proposed planning application may have on species and habitat in the wider landscape. The National (UK) and local (Derbyshire) Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) were also scrutinized for protected habitats and species relevant to the application area.

19. A number of electronic sources sites were also consulted including; www.magic.gov.uk; www.naturalengland.org.uk; Google Earth and www.ordinancesurvey.co.uk.

- **Field survey**

20. A walkover survey, including visual inspection of building and any trees, was undertaken to determine the availability of required resources for the protected species in the immediate area. The building was inspected both externally and internally for:

- Presence or absence of bats onsite (i.e. hibernating bats)
- Evidence and/or potential of bat roosts onsite (i.e. summer roosts)
- Whether additional surveys are required

| Jan | Feb | March | April | May | June | July | Aug | Sept | Oct | Nov | Dec | |-----|-----|-------|-------|-----|------|------|-----|------|-----|-----|-----| | Inspection of Hibernation roosts - semi optimal survey | Limited activity - sub optimal | Summer roost emergence & re-entry surveys - Optimal survey period | Limited activity - sub optimal | Hibernation roosts - semi optimal survey |

**Table 5.** Annual survey optimality for bats.

21. Phase 2 bat and bird activity surveys were conducted during an optimal time of the year (Temp: >8, when bats are in summer maternity or bachelor roosts. The survey inspection incorporated visual assessment with the use of binoculars, torch, endoscope and ladders where necessary. There were no access or survey constraints during the survey period(s). Surveyor information

22. Ecological assessment on-site was overseen by Mark Weston, a Natural England licensed bat Ecologist (CLS00836 – Level 2) and member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM).

Assistant ecologist(s):

- Louise Cox BSc (Hons)
- Jade Leese BSc, MSc

Habitat survey

23. The survey assessed habitat onsite in context to the wider landscape with regard to any important bat roosts, commuting/foraging areas that may be affected by the proposed development.

Roost survey

24. All potential roost structures (i.e. buildings) onsite or within the Zone of Influence of the proposed development were assessed, based on standard methodologies set out by Natural England, the Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC). External inspection considered suitable ingression points where species such as bats and birds could gain entry into any structures to roost and/or nest.

- Condition of roof i.e. missing or raised roof tiles;
- Condition of windows and doors i.e. broken panes;
- Potential ingression points around ridges and apex of the buildings;
- Any anecdotal evidence of bats i.e. droppings, grease marks, feeding remains;
- Any evidence of birds i.e. nest material, droppings.

25. The external inspection incorporated visual assessment with the use of torch, endoscope and ladders to ascertain the following:

- Any potential internal roost features i.e. non-illuminated areas, joints, crevices, beams and cavities.
- To locate potential roost/nest sites;
- To listen for any bats and birds;
- To examine floors, walls and structural elements for anecdotal evidence i.e. droppings, urine stains, corpses and feeding remains.

Building rating

26. In the absence of any evidence, trees and structures were assigned a rating of suitability from negligible to high potential for supporting bats. The rating is based on the number and type of features suitable for use by bats (such as rot holes, cavities and raised bark), location of the structure in the surrounding landscape and surveyor’s experience (e.g. a structure with a high level of regular disturbance with few opportunities for access by bats, that is in a highly urbanized area with few or no mature trees, parkland, woodland or wetland would generally equate to having negligible potential. Conversely, a pre 20th century or early 20th century building with many features suitable for use by bats close to good foraging habitat would have high potential). Table 6. Habitat assessment (BCT, 2016)

- **Activity surveys**

27. Under new BCT guidelines (2016), the number of prescribed activity surveys are based on initial overall building rating and suitability to support roosting bats:

| Suitability | Description Roosting habitats | Commuting and foraging habitats | |-------------|--------------------------------|---------------------------------| | Negligible | Negligible habitat features on site likely to be used by roosting bats. | Negligible habitat features on site likely to be used by commuting or foraging bats. | | Low | A structure with one or more potential roost sites that could be used by individual bats opportunistically. However, these potential roost sites do not provide enough space, shelter, protection, appropriate conditions and/or suitable surrounding habitat to be used on a regular basis or by larger numbers of bats (i.e. unlikely to be suitable for maternity or hibernation). A tree of sufficient size and age to contain PHFs but with none seen from the ground or features seen with only very limited roosting potential. | Habitat that could be used by small numbers of commuting bats such as a gappy hedgerow or unvegetated stream, but isolated, i.e. not very well connected to the surrounding landscape by other habitat. Suitable, but isolated habitat that could be used by small numbers of foraging bats such as a lone tree (not in a parkland situation) or a patch of scrub. | | Moderate | A structure or tree with one or more potential roost sites that could be used by bats due to their size, shelter, protection, conditions and surrounding habitat but unlikely to support a roost of high conservation status (with respect to roost type only – the assessments in this table are made irrespective of species conservation status, which is established after presence is confirmed). | Continuous habitat connected to the wider landscape that could be used by bats for commuting such as lines of trees and scrub or linked back gardens. Habitat that is connected to the wider landscape that could be used by bats for foraging such as trees, scrub, grassland or water. | | High | A structure or tree with one or more potential roost sites that are obviously suitable for use by larger numbers of bats on a more regular basis and potentially for longer periods of time due to their size, shelter, protection, conditions and surrounding habitat. | Continuous, high-quality habitat that is well connected to the wider landscape that is likely to be used regularly by commuting bats such as river valleys, streams, hedgerows, lines of trees and woodland edge. High-quality habitat that is well connected to the wider landscape that is likely to be used regularly by foraging bats such as broadleaved woodland, tree-lined watercourses and grazed parkland. Site is close to and connected to known roosts. |

- For example, in terms of temperature, humidity, height above ground level, light levels or levels of disturbance.

- Evidence from the Netherlands shows mass swarming events of common pipistrelle bats in the autumn followed by mass hibernation in a diverse range of building types in urban environments (Roden et al., 2016). This phenomenon requires some research in the UK but ecologists should be aware of the potential for larger numbers of this species to be present during the autumn and winter in large buildings in highly urbanised environments.

- This system of categorisation aligns with BS 8596:2015 Surveying for bats in trees and woodland (BSI, 2016).

Table 7. Survey effort in relation to roost suitability (BCT, 2016) 28. Activity surveys combined an overall assessment of any in-situ roost onsite, and any other Valued Ecological Receptors (VERs) considered to be within the Zone of Influence (ZoI) of the development, whilst considering any important commuting and foraging routes used by bats.

29. All activity surveys were undertaken in accordance with the guidelines published by the BCT 3rd edition 2016 to ascertain the following:

- Determine the presence/absence of species, i.e. the species present in a given area
- Determine the intensity of bat activity both spatially and temporally
- Determine the type of activity i.e. foraging (by feeding buzzes); commuting (by high directional pass rates); mating (by mating social calls)
- Find roosts by tracking back bat flight paths or observing commuting range

30. Evidence will be used to determine whether a European Protected Species (EPS) licence will be required to ensure legal compliance during development. This will also include identifying which mitigation measures [if any] would be most appropriate.

**Dusk emergence bat survey**

31. The object of this survey is to detect active bats leaving possible roost sites identified in the external and internal surveys. This was achieved by:

- Being at the site 1 hour before sunset.
- Listening for social calls at potential roost sites.
- Standing at different transect points around the buildings, to record any emerging bats and egress points.
- Standing at different transect points to assess foraging/commuting areas.
- Carrying out survey up to 1.5 - 2 hours after sunset to holistically consider interspecific differences between different bat species

**Dawn re-entry bat survey**

- Being at the site 2 hours before sunrise.
- Listening for social calls at potential roost sites.
- Standing at different transect points around the buildings, to record any swarming behaviour around potential re-entry points.
- Standing at different transect points to assess foraging/commuting areas.

32. Bat ultrasound data was gathered using a number of heterodyne units (Batbox Duet and SSF Bat2) and real-time recording devices (EcoObs Batcorder). Real time recordings were subsequently analyzed using BatSound v4.03 and statistical algorithm analysis was carried out using EcoObs BcAdmi, BatIdent and BcAnalyze software to provide an unbiased discrimination of species onsite.

**Weather conditions and timing**

33. All surveys were carried out during optimal survey conditions weather (Temp: >8°C / Nil Precipitation / \<1 wind), with a minimum interval of two weeks between surveys to allow for stochastic events over space and time. 3 RESULTS

- **Designated sites**

34. There are no international or national statutory designations within 2km of the application site, although a number of non-statutory designations and woodland inventories were recorded within the search radius.

- **Protected species**

35. National Biodiversity Network and Derbyshire Wildlife Trust (DWT) records show that 12 of the 17 resident UK bat species occur in the county, although none are recorded within a 2km radius. However, the landscape is highly suitable for bats and considered as being under-recorded rather than absent. Pre-survey data finds seven British bat species are currently given UK BAP (2007) Priority Species Status.

| UKBAP | Common name | Species | County | |-------|------------------------------|--------------------------|--------| | ✔ | BROWN LONG-EARED BAT | Plecotus auritus | ✔ | | ✔ | BARBASTELLE BAT | Barbastella barbastellus | ✔ | | ✔ | BECHSTEIN’S BAT | Myotis bechsteinii | ✔ | | ✔ | NOCTULE | Nyctalus noctula | ✔ | | ✔ | GREATER HORSESHOE BAT | Rhinolophus ferrumequinum| ✔ | | ✔ | LESSER HORSESHOE BAT | Rhinolophus hipposideros | ✔ | | ✔ | SOPRANO PIPISTRELLE | Pipistrellus pygmaeus | ✔ |

Table 8. UKBAP Bat species recorded within Derbyshire.

36. A further four/five bat species that are not currently given UK BAP consideration are also recorded within the county.

| ✔ | NATTERER’S BAT | Myotis Nattereri | ✔ | | ✔ | DAUBENTON’S BAT | Myotis daubentonii | ✔ | | ✔ | WHISKERED/ BRANDT BAT | Myotis mystacinus/brandtii| ✔ | | ✔ | COMMON PIPISTRELLE | Pipistrellus pipistrellus| ✔ |

Table 9. Non UKBAP Bat species recorded in Derbyshire.

37. Derbyshire Ecological data records show no Red and Amber lists of Birds of conservation Concern (BoCC) present within 2km of the application area or Schedule 1 listed birds including Barn owl. • **Habitat description**

38. The application area falls within the Peak District National Park Management Plan which consists of a highly diverse area of land that ranges from ancient semi-natural and replanted woodland, moorland, lowland meadows, wet heath moor & boglands, stream valleys and washlands. Over a third of the national park has SSSI designation and 95% of these designated sites are now in 'favourable' or 'recovering' condition, compared with 28% of sites in 2003.

39. As part of the wider landscape, the site is located north of the small hamlet Bagshaw to the east of Chapel-en-le-Frith in the Peak District of Derbyshire. The site is accessed along a main track off Blackbrook Lane via Bagshaw and comprises of “Pinfold Farm” itself, and a series of curtilage buildings including the two storey surveyed building with an attached cinderblock single story section on the eastern aspect forming part of “J Dawson’s Sheds”.

40. There is good connectivity to the surrounding landscape, which is composed of agricultural land, connected by hedgerows with several valuable resources, such as woodland blocks, Ancient woodland (Birchenlow Plantation 850m to N) and lowland meadows (in a 2km radius of the proposed application area for local bat and bird populations).

• **Roost survey**

41. The proposed planning application considers a main two-storey stone building with pitched roof and an attached flat roof single storey cinderblock extension on the west elevation. The overall dimensions of the building is ca. 23.05m x 6.5m.

42. The roof section was found to be formed entirely of corrugated asbestos sheet roofing, which is not considered as being conducive for the thermoregulation requirements of crevice-dwelling bat species, being highly labile to thermal fluctuations on a daily basis.

43. Conversely, the building was noted as having numerous gaps and crevices present around external stone work and roof verges, with a number of ventilation brick-slits present on the south elevation.

44. No evidence of bats or Barn owl was recorded on the external inspection. External view

Figure 3. East elevation.

Figure 4. South elevation.

Figure 5. North elevations.

Figure 6. West elevation (cinderblock section).

Internal view

Figure 7. Cinderblock section on west elevation.

Figure 8. Cinderblock section on west elevation.

Figure 9. Open upper roof void above tack room on the southern elevation.

Figure 10. Looking NW inside the main open section of the building. 45. The building can be accessed internally by the doorways on both east and western elevations (the latter leading into the cinderblock section). The cinderblock section is in current use for stabling livestock.

46. The area was seen to be well illuminated with a flat corrugated sheet roof exposed on the underside. The original section of the stone farm building is largely open to roof height, with an open first floor roof void present above a tack room on the southern elevation.

47. The open section was found to be voluminous with timber truss work exposed at height, providing high potential as a feeding station or sheltered swarming areas for pre-emergent void dwelling bat species (i.e. brown long-eared bat). Once again, the internal roof void was seen to be highly illuminated by natural daylight ingress through window / skylight areas along the east and western elevations, with evidence of missing sections of corrugated roofing.

48. The underside of the corrugated roof was found to be exposed with no intermediary layers present, limiting potential and overall suitability for any roost permanency in this area. The farm building was also found to be utilized by domestic ‘farm’ cats thus reducing potential further due to increase potential of predation.

49. No evidence of bats or Barn owl was recorded during the internal inspection. Minor historic evidence of individual nesting passerine birds and European Swallow were recorded.

- **Overall building rating**

50. Overall the building unit(s) subject to development is considered as having **LOW TO MODERATE** potential for roosting bats overall. Whilst, the original building pertains to a large number of crack and crevices in-and-around the original stone-work, the overall roof fabrication is not considered conducive to the thermoregulation requirements of roosting bats. Furthermore, the building is well illuminated, subject to frequent disturbance/visitation and is also used to house five domestic farm cats, thus reducing overall potential for roosting bats.

- **Activity surveys**

51. Based on current legislation and guidelines, two activity surveys (1 x dusk / 1 x dawn) were subsequently carried out around the structure. All surveys were carried out during optimal survey conditions (Temp: >8°C / Nil Precipitation / \<1 wind), with a minimum interval of two weeks between surveys to allow for stochastic events over time and space.

| Survey 1 - Dusk emergence | DATE: 22/05/2017 | |---------------------------|------------------| | SUNSET: | 21:39hrs | | START TIME | 21:20hrs | | FINISH TIME | 23:15hrs | | TEMP START | 14°C | | TEMP FINISH | 12°C | | WIND SPEED | \<1 | | CLOUD COVER START | 20% | | CLOUD COVER FINISH | 20% | | PRECIPITATION | NIL |

| Survey 2 – Dawn re-entry | DATE: 28/05/2017 | |--------------------------|------------------| | SUNRISE: | 04:53hrs | | START TIME | 02:15hrs | | FINISH TIME | 04:10hrs | | TEMP START | 10°C | | TEMP FINISH | 11.5°C | | WIND SPEED | \<1 | | CLOUD COVER START | 30% | | CLOUD COVER FINISH | 20% | | PRECIPITATION | NIL |

**Table 10.** Survey timing and conditions • **Roosts**

52. No evidence of any high conservation status bat roost(s) was recorded *in-situ* within the building subject to development. Regular internal inspection of the roof void during the dusk survey period recorded no evidence of pre-emergent, void-dwelling bat species.

53. Conversely, a single common pipistrelle was visually seen as showing some affinity to an external wall on the SW facing cinderblock mono-pitched roof section shortly before dawn, where a prominent cavity is present (Fig. 11). This bat made circumnavigated around this area, landing once on the wall before then vacating off site in a NW direction.

![Figure 11. Breeze block section with cavity.](image)

54. Activity surveys recorded low levels of solitary commuting and foraging common pipistrelle briefly around site during both survey periods. Most notably, common noctule were visually recorded commuting and foraging in tandem over site, during both survey periods. Early presence around dawn and dusk would strongly infer the presence of roost nearby, although not considered as being present within the application area itself. Given the number of impressive mature trees present around the area, it is considered a tree roost is highly likely, although not within the ZoI.

55. No evidence of Schedule 1 listed birds were recorded during the survey periods.

4 **IMPACT ASSESSMENT**

• **Constraints on survey information**

56. No survey constraints were encountered during the survey periods, and overall assessment was considered as being robust and representational of the building(s) current potential for bats and birds.

• **Designated sites**

57. The scheme retains the existing size and physical form of the existing building(s) footprint with no additional land up-take considered. There are no Statutory or Non-Statutory designated sites considered being immediately within the zone of influence of the proposed development, and no impact to conservation sites or the wider landscape is predicted. • **Roosts**

58. Whilst the report is confident that no bat roosts of high conservation status are currently present onsite, there was evidence of single common pipistrelle showing a degree of affinity to the cinderblock section shortly before dawn, although not confirmed as roosting. Pipistrelle bats show lower fidelity to their roosts than other synanthropic species and are known to roost-switch (Dietz et al. 2009). In the absence of mitigation low impact on a transient day roost for solitary pipistrelle bats over space and time is considered possible but not absolute.

| BATS | Short-term: Disturbance | Long-term: Roost modification | \*Long-term: Roost loss | |------|-------------------------|-------------------------------|-----------------------| | LOW | LOW | LOW | LOW |

(*The impact of loss of roosts on bat populations is poorly understood and difficult to study. There is variation in the impacts depending on the particular species of bat with some being more sensitive to disturbance than others. Synanthropic species such as Pipistrelle bats for example are crevice roosters, and are known to move between roost sites (such as maternity roosts). These bats may find it easier to locate suitable new roosts as their requirements are not as specific as other species.)*

| BIRDS | LOW | LOW | LOW | |-------|-----|-----|-----| | BARN OWL | NEGLIGIBLE | NEGLIGIBLE | NEGLIGIBLE |

**MITIGATION ASSESSMENT**

| Type and scale of works and predicted impacts on bats | Redevelopment / partial removal with roofing works considered - In the absence of mitigation short-term LOW IMPACT to individual, transient crevice dwelling bat species is predicted but not considered certain. | |------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Size, nature and complexity of the development site | A single phased small-scale development of low complexity | | Likelihood of bats being present or affected | LOW | | Type of roost and/or habitat affected. | NEGLIGIBLE TO LOW IMPACT considered for transient common pipistrelle “Day roost” although no permanent roost recorded permanently onsite. No impact is to major foraging and commuting habitat for bats is predicted under the proposed scheme, although consideration should be given to any post development lighting that may have deleterious effects on the adjacent habitats through light pollution |

Table 11. Mitigation assessment.

59. No evidence of Barn owl was recorded and no impact is predicted.

• **Foraging and commuting habitat**

60. It is considered that the scale of the proposed redevelopment would have negligible impact on foraging and commuting habitat for bats overall, with no alteration to existing landscape / habitat proposed. Conversely, the air space above the site was found to be used as a main flight route for common noctule thus consideration should be given to any post development lighting and deleterious effects caused through sky glow and light spill onto adjacent habitats (see recommendations). 5 RECOMMENDATIONS

- **Further survey**

61. Assessment onsite was undertaken during an optimal survey period and considered to be robust and representative of protected species currently onsite. **NO** further survey effort regarding bats is considered.

62. **NO** further survey recommendations are considered for protected bird species (including Barn Owl).

- **Mitigation licenses**

63. As no evidence of any high conservation status bat roost(s) was recorded in the building subject to development, it will not be necessary to apply for a mitigation licence from Natural England. However, as there is tentative evidence that the building may have some transient use by individual pipistrelle bats over space and time, it is recommended that the following site-safeguard measures are made a condition of the Planning consent.

**SITE SAFE-GUARD RECOMMENDATIONS**

- **Timing of works**

64. Best practice guidelines recommend that any works which encroach into the roof section area should ideally be carried out during autumn/winter (late Sept to Oct) to early spring (Jan to March) to avoid the likelihood of individual roosting bats. In this instance, starting such works late September end would allow any individual bats to naturally disperse under their own volition, should they be present, whilst there are still sufficient resources in the surrounding landscape for bats to utilize prior to the onset of winter.

65. Before ANY work commences, ALL building contractors would be made aware of the possible presence of bats within the building subject to redevelopment, their legal protection and of working practices to avoid harming bats.

**Soft demolition under supervision**

66. It is proposed that a soft demolition approach of the cinderblock building section and inspection of any cavities before any re-pointing is carried out under supervision by a suitably qualified Ecologist until he/she considers the building to be free of any bats.

67. Thereafter, should individual roosting bats be encountered (or suspicion arise of their whereabouts), then **ALL works must cease immediately.** The acting ecologist should then reassess the structure and determine whether a mitigation licence from Natural England will be required before any further works can commence thereafter.

- **Receptor box**

68. In the unlikely event that bats are encountered during works, a **receptor bat box** (Schwegler 2FN) should be suitably installed onsite, being well outside the zone of influence of the proposed development and prior to any works commencing. Depending on the circumstances, the use of standard capture and exclusion methods may be necessary for safe-guarding. This should be undertaken by a licensed bat ecologist only. • **Roost compensation**

69. In accordance with the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006, development proposals should seek, where possible, to enhance opportunities available to local bat populations. To compensate for any inadvertent loss of roosting features for crevice-dwelling bats, it is recommended that two (2no.) Schwegler 1FQ external bat boxes are fitted at height onto opposing SW and NE elevations.

![Figure 12. Schwegler 1FQ](image)

70. Further information of increasing biodiversity prospects for roosting bats can be found on the Bat Conservation Trust website: [http://www.bats.org.uk/pages/new_build.html](http://www.bats.org.uk/pages/new_build.html).

• **Foraging and commuting habitat**

71. Should the application consider any additional post development lighting onsite, then the use of low energy LED lighting to minimize light spill around the building should be incorporated where possible. Alternatively, Low-pressure sodium lamps (SOX) are recommended, which should be fitted with hoods to direct the light below the horizontal plane to minimize light-spill. Any security lighting should be less than 200 lumens (150 watts) and placed on a timer setting and faced down to reduce sky glow. Height of any columns around the development should not exceed eight metres.

**BIRDS**

72. Consideration should be given to nesting birds which are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Works should ideally be undertaken outside the bird breeding season (March to August inclusive). Where this is not possible, then a check for nesting birds should be undertaken by an ecologist prior to works.

73. Should any active bird nests be found, then these should be left undisturbed until offspring have fully fledged. It may be necessary to enforce an exclusion work zone of 5m to reduce disturbance and minimize potential displacement of nesting birds.

74. No evidence of Barn owl was recorded and NO further recommendations are considered.

75. It is recommended that a minimum of five pre-formed “cup-shaped nests” are integrated within the design of the development where possible for European Swallow. These should be placed internally at height (preferably on beams), being at least 1m apart. Provision can also be made in open-fronted log-sheds, car ports or porches.

![Figure 13. Pre-formed swallow cup nests](image)

76. If this is not possible then installation of external eaves/ridge overhang boxes with an open bottom and ledges for swallows to nest on should be implemented as an alternative. Further guidance from a suitably qualified ecologist should be sought in this event.

77. In accordance with the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006, it is also recommended that a minimum of four bird nesting boxes (suitable for different species) should also be incorporated into the final scheme, being fitted to either mature trees or to external elevation of buildings where possible.

78. Bird nesting boxes should be positioned at ca. 2-4m above ground level where possible.

79. Further information regarding nest boxes can be found on the RSPB website: [http://www.rspb.org.uk/advice/helpingbirds/nestboxes/smallbirds/siting.aspx](http://www.rspb.org.uk/advice/helpingbirds/nestboxes/smallbirds/siting.aspx)

- **Landscaping**

80. Should any landscaping be considered at a later date, then it is recommended that only native tree and shrub species are planted. In particular, no plant species listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 should be planted during any landscaping around the conversions.

- For further details of Schedule 9 plants visit the Defra website: [www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/non-native](http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/non-native). REFERENCES

- Bat Conservation Trust (2012). Bat Surveys – Good Practice Guidelines. 2nd Edition. Bat Conservation Trust: London.

- Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (c.37). London: HMSO.

- Dietz, C., von Helversen, O. & Nill, D. (2009) Bats of Britain, Europe and Northwest Africa. London: A. C. Black.

- HMSO (1995): Biodiversity: The UK Steering Group Report, Volume 2: Action Plans, London.

- Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005) Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation. The Stationery Office, Norwich.

- RSPB (2002) The Population Status of Birds in the UK 2002-2007

- Rydell J & Racey, P A (1993) Street lamps and the feeding ecology of insectivorous bats. Recent Advances in Bat Biology, Zool. Soc. Lond. Symposium abstracts.

- The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. SI 2010/490. SI 2007/1843, London: HMSO.

- UK Biodiversity Action Plan (2007). UK List of Priority Species. Joint Nature Conservation Committee. [Online]. Available at: http://www.ukbap.org.uk/NewPriorityList.aspx [accessed on 20th October 2010]. APPENDICES

Appendix 1 – Maps & forms Produced for Charnia Ecology by Derbyshire Wildlife Trust June 2017

### Appendix 3 – Policy guidelines

| **PAS 2010** | The published ‘PAS 2010’ ‘Planning to halt the loss of biodiversity’ which is the government’s new policy aimed at all authorities and developers involved in the planning process in the UK to halt biodiversity decline by | | **National Planning Policy Framework, Section 11:** | The recently published framework in 2012, replaces the previous Planning Policy Statement 9. Section 11: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment, reaffirms the Government’s commitment to maintaining green belt protections and preventing urban sprawl, retains the protection of designated sites and preserves wildlife, aims to improve the quality of the | | **Article 10 of the EC Habitats Directive:** | The published Article requires government to develop features such as ‘stepping stones’ on the landscape, such as clusters of ponds, tracts of | | **Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981:** | All species of bat are fully protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the European Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations 1994, and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. This legislation makes it illegal to possess or control any live or dead specimens, to damage, destroy | | **Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2010)** | The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 consolidate all the various amendments made to the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994, in respect of England and Wales. It is an offence to possess, sell or offer, or transport for sale any European species of bat or any part derived from such a species. These Regulations also remove the ‘incidental result defence’. In other words, it is no longer a defence to show that the killing, capture or disturbance of a species covered by the | | **Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006)** | Under Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006), public bodies, including Local and Regional Planning Authorities, have a duty to ‘have regard’ to the conservation of biodiversity in England when carrying out their normal functions, which includes consideration of planning applications. In compliance with Section 41 of the Act, the Secretary of State has published a list of species considered to be of principal importance for conserving biodiversity in England. This is known | | **Bird legislation** | Most resident nesting birds are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which protects birds, nests, eggs and nestling’s. Some |

Table A. Policy guidelines. Appendix 4 – Annual life cycle of a temperate bat

January

Jan: Bats spend most of the winter hibernating, a state of inactivity characterized by lower body temperature, slower breathing, and lower metabolic rate. Females: Bats are still hibernating. They have little fat left to live off of now. They may leave the roost on warmer nights to find food and a drink of water. Males: Bats may begin to emerge and signs of limited activity can be seen. There are small numbers feeding as it gets warmer. In bad weather, they may become torpid.

February

April

April: Bats have mainly come out of hibernation and are hungry and active, feeding on warm nights. They may be moving between several roost sites. They may become torpid (cool and inactive) again when cold.

May

May: Bats are fully active and feeding. Females start forming maternity colonies and looking for suitable nursery sites, such as buildings or trees. Males will roost on their own or in small groups. June: Female bats usually give birth to a single pup, which they feed on their milk. Young bats are very small (less than an inch) with thin, slightly grey fur. Adult bats will catch thousands of insects each in a night.

June

July

July: Mothers continue to suckle young. Some young are growing fast and almost full-size; others are still very small. At around three weeks old, young bats are sometimes found on the ground as they learn to fly.

August

Aug: At six weeks old, the young bats begin to catch insects for themselves and no longer need their mothers’ milk. The summer maternity colonies begin to disperse and bats may move to mating roosts. Sept: Mating season begins, with males of most species using special mating calls to attract females, which can include purrs, clicks, and buzzing. Bats are also concentrating on building up fat stores for the coming months.

September

October

Oct: More mating is taking place, and building up fat reserves is becoming crucial to survive the winter season. Bats are seeking suitable hibernation sites, and beginning periods of torpor. Nov: Periods of torpor are lasting longer. Some begin hibernation, to save energy over the colder months, when insects are harder to find. They are using stored fat as fuel. Dec: Bats are hibernating. They may roost on their own or in small groups, often in cool, quiet places like dimmed buildings, old trees or caves, where they hopefully won’t be disturbed. (Source: Bat Conservation Trust).